Great Barrington Declaration, lets get back to Cruising!!

[yogimax]

2 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

Basically, the GBD, as urged here by the OP and others, does depend on a belief in eugenics: if Covid is not a major threat to fit people with no underlying health conditions, then it is an acceptable risk to allow it to run through the population until herd immunity is reached.

 

After all, unfit people and unhealthy people must accept their "personal responsibility" for any heightened risks they face from Covid. "Innocent fit people should not be punished due to governments trying to protect" the foolishly vulnerable.

 

This can be simplified to: some people just aren't worth protecting.

 

In other words, let's just stop any effort to be a moral modern civilization. The Nazis likewise justified their extermination camps as weeding out the impure.

 

Got it.

 

Where is the open-source "GBD is evil trash" for for me to sign?

 

Yes, while many give allegiance to the Darwinian concept of "survival of the fittest," it's logical extension is the sacrifice of the most vulnerable.

 

The herd immunity crew are willing to do just that, sacrifice the most vulnerable so the fittest and can reap the rewards.

 

Where have we gone as a society?

[broberts]

1 hour ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Roughly 25,000 children under the age of 5 die every year. We should work on that as well.

 

We should and do.

[Lou33]

On 10/18/2020 at 12:02 AM, compman9 said:

I expect everyone to take the appropriate precautions to protect their own lives, and not expect fit and healthy people to lose theirs to protect them

 

This pandemic clearly affects older people as opposed to children.  But if this was the other way around.  If this virus was killing mostly children.  Then the older people would do "anything" to protect them.  

 

To get through this we need a united, let's all work together mind set.  As opposed to "everyone for themselves".  That's why countries like New Zealand and Japan have been so successful.  

[Sweetnspicy]

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

Basically, the GBD, as urged here by the OP and others, does depend on a belief in eugenics: if Covid is not a major threat to fit people with no underlying health conditions, then it is an acceptable risk to allow it to run through the population until herd immunity is reached.

 

After all, unfit people and unhealthy people must accept their "personal responsibility" for any heightened risks they face from Covid. "Innocent fit people should not be punished due to governments trying to protect" the foolishly vulnerable.

 

This can be simplified to: some people just aren't worth protecting.

 

In other words, let's just stop any effort to be a moral modern civilization. The Nazis likewise justified their extermination camps as weeding out the impure.

 

Got it.

 

Where is the open-source "GBD is evil trash" for for me to sign?

 

YES. Scream this from the rooftops. I’m baffled and so sad that people think it’s okay to just let “the old people” die. I love my grandparents. They are so special to me and at 82 and 86, I want them to stick around for as long as they can. They are weak and vulnerable but should that mean they are just out of luck? Guess you shouldn’t be old or have pre existing health conditions!! 

[compman9]

The most fascinating thing about this debate is the consistency among keyboard warriors worldwide to be incredibly rude to people they would be polite to when in their physical company.

 

Ireland are about to go into a 6 week full lockdown - At preset there are approx. 3 deaths per day. On no level is this justifiable.

 

The UK media are loving every minute of this crisis. The scaremongering is in full overdrive. Example - We are told that positive tests are similar to March so we are facing imminent disaster.

Around a quarter of a million tests a day are taking place today. Around 10,000 tests were taking place a day back then. This would obviously suggest that actual infections in March were almost certainly in their tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands daily.

 

Also in the UK, flu appears to have been eradicated, the numbers are so small. The threat of covid is clearly much smaller now than last spring and all science is being skewed to fit political agenda. We are in a position where an 18 year old fitness fanatic is locked down, while a 65 year old diabetic supermarket shelf stacker is able to work. 

 

I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but it is an undeniable fact that the UK are using the same tactics now s several months ago, irrespective of the fact more is known about the virus, treatment has improved dramatically, and people are acting more responsibly.

 

The reason we are having these disagreements is mainly because so much more is known today than in March, and personal interest / needs / health, often dictates a position people will take in the debate. 

 

[TheMastodon]

10 hours ago, John&LaLa said:

 

Roughly 25,000 children under the age of 5 die every year. We should work on that as well.

 

Children die of the Flu every year.  Healthy ones too.  

[johnjen]

This is, finally, a sane approach toward....sanity. The current "rules and regulations" are more damaging than the covid itself. Signed, and shared on social media.

[johnjen]

On 10/11/2020 at 1:55 AM, broberts said:

What the declaration doesn't mention is that to reach herd immunity would likely result in some 2,000,000 deaths in the U.S. alone.

 

What the declaration glosses over is the actual cost of providing real protection for all of the at risk people. Consider that almost 40% of U.S. adults are obese, just one of the many COVID risk factors.

 

What the declaration glosses over is that adults and children with no preconditions can die from the disease. 

 

How many dead people are the signatories willing to accept. Will any of them volunteer?

 

Where are you getting that from? 

[johnjen]

On 10/11/2020 at 4:58 PM, nomad098 said:

 

I do not know as we have a National Health Service here, but I am aware the hospitals have received extra funding based on severity of the COVID-19 in their hospitals  

..and THAT leads to inflated COVID-19 figures. Greed and avarice doesn't care about the virus.

[johnjen]

10 hours ago, mayleeman said:

After all, unfit people and unhealthy people must accept their "personal responsibility" for any heightened risks they face from Covid. "Innocent fit people should not be punished due to governments trying to protect" the foolishly vulnerable.

100% agree with this! Especially those who abuse their health to overeating and smoking.

[mayleeman]

15 minutes ago, johnjen said:

100% agree with this! Especially those who abuse their health to overeating and smoking.

Gosh, and those idiots who worked in coal mines or built factories using asbestos insulation they weren't told was dangerous, or the suckers who went to Vietnam and got exposed to Agent Orange. Or people fighting respiratory infections in Houston or Katrina from mold. None of those people are fit, so they should just suck it up when they have severe or fatal responses to Covid. Who are these irresponsible people, anyway?

 

Rallying cry: Let the herd barhop, darn it! Stragglers, fall out like you deserve!

 

Sheesh....

Edited October 20, 2020 by mayleeman

[nomad098]

12 hours ago, broberts said:

 

A good place to start, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext#

 

There is an awful lot of material available, most of it is pretty specialized and often quite technical. In other words, one has to absorb a fairly large amount of data to confirm the advice offered by WHO.

 

A really interesting read on the efficiency of N95 face masks, full face respirators, medical grade masks and face shields. Some of the meta-data needs to be taken with a pinch of salt especially from the WHO. But the observational data certainly confirms my own opinion about masks.

 

N95 face masks, full face respirators, medical grade masks and face shields are some of the best tools to help control transmision when used correctly, the real world situation is that most people do not know how to use them correctly and how to decontaminate when removing them.

 

The use of the masks by the public not "professional grade" must make a difference but I am unsure on how much. They probably do provide protection for those around them but pose a contamination risk to the user.

 

Conclusions masks are good providing they are used correctly but harms must also taken into account when in use.

 

But this still does not answer the question of which set of recommendations are conclusively better the GBD or the John Snow memo.

 

The two methods do not totally exclude what the other is saying. The reality is we are following the John Snow memo here but the government is also following GBD in respect to care homes to protect them and some of the stories about families and those in the care homes is heartbreaking but the alternative would possibly be so much worse. 

 

 

[Billy Baltic]

4 hours ago, compman9 said:

The reason we are having these disagreements is mainly because so much more is known today than in March, and personal interest / needs / health, often dictates a position people will take in the debate. 

We know a bit more than we did in the Spring but this virus is very new and science is learning as they go. 
Debate is a good thing as far as I’m concerned. We should never accept things without questioning. I don’t personally like lockdowns or the economic damage they do but I don’t believe we have a viable alternative. 
We are told that 20% of the population are vulnerable. Among the things that would make someone vulnerable are asthma, type 1 diabetes and pregnancy.

If there’s a genuine alternative, that protects the health of that 20%, I’ve yet to hear it.

[BND]

3 hours ago, TheMastodon said:

 

Children die of the Flu every year.  Healthy ones too.  

Our county had one healthy 17 year old girl die this past Feb from the flu.  We also have had no one under 40 and one person aged 40-49 die from Corona, with the vast majority being over 80.  No one panicked over the flu death.  I guess my problem with all this is people thinking we can prevent all deaths which we can't no matter how much we want to or try.  We have to live our lives and understand for every illness or lifestyle there are risks.  It's just the way it is. 

 

I just had my physical this morning.  My Dr was as interested in my mental health as she was my physical.  Asking if I was sleeping okay, etc, which I am.   

[broberts]

3 hours ago, johnjen said:

Where are you getting that from? 

 

I believe this has been addressed further back in this thread.

 

The 2,000,000 dead Americans is an estimate based on public statements by various epidemiologists and publicly available data. At the current U.S. death rate it would actually be around 5.3 million (330,000,000 population x 60% to reach herd immunity x 2.7% death rate = 5,346,000).

 

Obesity see https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. One should also lookup diabetes rates, asthma rates, and population age distribution. It seems logical that the cost of truly protecting those with serious risk factors would be prohibitive and likely much more than the mitigation efforts suggest by WHO.

 

Data by age and health https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

 

[broberts]

37 minutes ago, BND said:

Our county had one healthy 17 year old girl die this past Feb from the flu.  We also have had no one under 40 and one person aged 40-49 die from Corona, with the vast majority being over 80.  No one panicked over the flu death.  I guess my problem with all this is people thinking we can prevent all deaths which we can't no matter how much we want to or try.  We have to live our lives and understand for every illness or lifestyle there are risks.  It's just the way it is.   

 

It's not a question of avoiding all COVID-19 deaths. The goal is to keep infection rates low so that the healthcare system is not overwhelmed. 

 

Left unchecked the virus would spread so rapidly that hospitals would soon run out of resources. When that happens not only will more COVID-19 patients die but so to would many other patients. Elective surgery wait times would be extended as would cancer treatments.

[TheMastodon]

2 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

I believe this has been addressed further back in this thread.

 

The 2,000,000 dead Americans is an estimate based on public statements by various epidemiologists and publicly available data. At the current U.S. death rate it would actually be around 5.3 million (330,000,000 population x 60% to reach herd immunity x 2.7% death rate = 5,346,000).

 

Obesity see https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. One should also lookup diabetes rates, asthma rates, and population age distribution. It seems logical that the cost of truly protecting those with serious risk factors would be prohibitive and likely much more than the mitigation efforts suggest by WHO.

 

Data by age and health https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

 

 

 

Yeah those various epidemiologists have said a lot of things that didn't pan out either.   We will just keep consuming what they say though. 

 

2.7% is based on confirmed positive cases.  If we were able to count all the asymptomatic people walking around with Covid19 (CDC estimates 10x)  it would be even lower right?  Or am I just loosing my mind

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BND]

17 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

 

Yeah those various epidemiologists have said a lot of things that didn't pan out either.   We will just keep consuming what they say though. 

 

2.7% is based on confirmed positive cases.  If we were able to count all the asymptomatic people walking around with Covid19 (CDC estimates 10x)  it would be even lower right?  Or am I just loosing my mind

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are studies that show the actual infection rate is 8-10 times more than the positive tests, so yeah it is lower.

[broberts]

4 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

 

Yeah those various epidemiologists have said a lot of things that didn't pan out either.   We will just keep consuming what they say though. 

 

2.7% is based on confirmed positive cases.  If we were able to count all the asymptomatic people walking around with Covid19 (CDC estimates 10x)  it would be even lower right?  Or am I just loosing my mind

 

The epidemiologists have been right far more often than those that disagree with them. COVID-19 is a NOVEL virus, i.e. it's new, never seen before, no one has prior experience with it. Reasonable people understand that there is a learning curve.

 

Pick a number then. If 10% of the population has had covid, the current death rate works out to 0.73%. That would result in about 1,400,000 deaths to reach 60%, the lowest infection level I've seen for herd immunity.

[TheMastodon]

5 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

The epidemiologists have been right far more often than those that disagree with them. COVID-19 is a NOVEL virus, i.e. it's new, never seen before, no one has prior experience with it. Reasonable people understand that there is a learning curve.

 

Pick a number then. If 10% of the population has had covid, the current death rate works out to 0.73%. That would result in about 1,400,000 deaths to reach 60%, the lowest infection level I've seen for herd immunity.

 

Who is right then?  Because there are epidemiologists on both sides of this debate.  

 

CDC estimates for every positive case there are 10 walking around they don't catch.  You do the math.  Seems a tad high to me, but I'm not employed at the CDC.  In the end it doesn't matter because we'll never know how many asymptomatic cases there was - but 2.7% is not accurate and will always be high.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/health/coronavirus-antibodies-asymptomatic.html

 

I'm not arguing for Great Barrington Declaration.  But I am a supporter of living a calculated life w/ masks, and good hygiene.  If masks work like they say, then there is no reason why small businesses, restaurants, etc can't be open that require masks.  

 

All these looser journalists who are acting like epidemiologists/public health experts/economists seem to be the ones in favor of locking us all down all the time.  Screw them.   If we took away their social media accounts away or shut down their publications because an extremely small portion of them was at risk I would love to see how they would react.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheMastodon]

31 minutes ago, BND said:

We raised two boys (34 and 36 now) and all four of us had the flu two years in a row when they were young and they've each had it probably once since then.  Flu never scared me.  We got through it fine as almost all most people do.  We get our flu shots and take normal precautions.   

 

At some point, we had to live our lives.  Wear masks, wash hands, etc.  Get the vaccine when it comes out and keep moving forward.   

Never had the flu (knock on wood)

 

My boss and I get the flu shot, as well as our kids.  They are all very young - so I really don't want them to have to battle it. 

 

Completely agree.  Wear mask, wash hands, support local businesses, support friends/family/strangers, eat well/exercise.  I'll get the vaccine, whether others do or not is up to them.  

 

 

[broberts]

45 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

Who is right then?  Because there are epidemiologists on both sides of this debate. 

 

Source?

 

Bottom line, until a viable cure or vaccine becomes widely available if infection rates are not kept low the healthcare system may become overwhelmed leading to many undesirable outcomes for even the healthiest people.

[Pratique]

14 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

Never had the flu (knock on wood)

 

I've mentioned this before, but I had the flu many years back and it was awful. I was curled up on the floor in so much pain that I couldn't move. It hit me hard and fast. And I was much younger then. One of my colleagues at work about 20 years ago got the flu, which turned into pneumonia and sudden death. He was in his early 50s and just like that he was gone.

 

Generally speaking, humans are genetically programmed to procreate (or as the guy making my sandwich at Subway once put it, "to keep the train rolling"). Our hardwired instinct for self-preservation is there to get us through childbearing years. After childbearing years are over nature has little use for us. That's the way it has been for 300,000 years. So the idea of using modern science and medicine to extend our lives is a pretty recent thing, and I don't think it is a natural one. In that sense I'm not surprised by the survival of the fittest theories because they are baked into our programming.

 

1 hour ago, TheMastodon said:

If masks work like they say, then there is no reason why small businesses, restaurants, etc can't be open that require masks.

 

One persistent problem is that some people are reacting very poorly towards officials and business owners who want to enforce mask wearing. What do you think? Why do people generally accept seat belt requirements in automobiles and airplanes but resist the masks, all done for the sake of safety? The epidemiologists are saying that if everyone wore a mask we could get thorough this until a vaccine is ready, but the lockdowns are a consequence of enough people failing to wear masks. I don't think the messages about masks and lockdowns are inconsistent.

[TheMastodon]

18 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Source?

 

Bottom line, until a viable cure or vaccine becomes widely available if infection rates are not kept low the healthcare system may become overwhelmed leading to many undesirable outcomes for even the healthiest people.

The WHO doesn’t support lockdowns.  

 

[TheMastodon]

6 minutes ago, Pratique said:

 

I've mentioned this before, but I had the flu many years back and it was awful. I was curled up on the floor in so much pain that I couldn't move. It hit me hard and fast. And I was much younger then. One of my colleagues at work about 20 years ago got the flu, which turned into pneumonia and sudden death. He was in his early 50s and just like that he was gone.

 

Generally speaking, humans are genetically programmed to procreate (or as the guy making my sandwich at Subway once put it, "to keep the train rolling"). Our hardwired instinct for self-preservation is there to get us through childbearing years. After childbearing years are over nature has little use for us. That's the way it has been for 300,000 years. So the idea of using modern science and medicine to extend our lives is a pretty recent thing, and I don't think it is a natural one. In that sense I'm not surprised by the survival of the fittest theories because they are baked into our programming.

 

 

One persistent problem is that some people are reacting very poorly towards officials and business owners who want to enforce mask wearing. What do you think? Why do people generally accept seat belt requirements in automobiles and airplanes but resist the masks, all done for the sake of safety? The epidemiologists are saying that if everyone wore a mask we could get thorough this until a vaccine is ready, but the lockdowns are a consequence of enough people failing to wear masks. I don't think the messages about masks and lockdowns are inconsistent.

 

Pratique I don’t know how we could quantify how many wear masks compared to who doesn’t.  When I go to Target, Costco, Home Depot, grocery, small biz , etc every patron is wearing a mask.  Sure, I’ve seen some here and there that aren’t but the vast majority are.  At this point someone not wearing a mask sticks out like a sore thumb.  I would estimate the vast vast majority in my area are masked up and I think it’s great.